Dismissed

Vishnu Kumar Chainman v. District Collector and Anr.

Rajasthan HC17 Jan 2023CW/2858/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an award terminating his services for failing to prove 240 days of work. The Court held the factual record of employment must be examined by the Labour Court and refused to substitute its findings, dismissing the writ petition for lack of merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the Labour Court's award terminating the petitioner's services was dismissed.

Vishnu Kumar Chainman Vs District Collector… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2858/2018

¶4

Vishnu Kumar Chainman S/o Shri Pooran Prasad Sharma, R/o Near Kachahari, Bayana, District Bharatpur Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The District Collector Land Records, Bharatpur.

¶8

Tehsildar, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Satyapal Poshwal, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶12

Order

¶13

17/01/2023

¶14

This Court finds that the petitioner, in the instant case, has challenged the award dated 14.08.2017, passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, whereby the reference made in respect of termination of services of the petitioner with effect from 01.01.1987, has been decided against the petitioner, as the petitioner had failed to prove working of 240 days prior to his date of retrenchment.

¶15

I have gone through the order passed by the Labour Court and perused the material available on record.

¶16

This Court finds that the Labour Court, after taking into account the documentary evidence, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner had not worked at all from the month of August, 1986 to November, 1986 and no record to the same effect was produced.

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CW-2858/2018]

¶19

This Court further finds that the oral evidence led on behalf of the respondent-Department, was taken into account and only on the basis of one document – M-5, no inference could have been drawn regarding working of the petitioner.

¶20

This Court finds that the factual aspect of working of the workmen-petitioner is required to be examined by the Labour Court, after considering the evidence led before it.

¶21

This Court finds that if the findings in respect of actual working of the petitioner has been recorded by the Labour Court, the substitution of such finding will not be appropriate in writ jurisdiction until the findings are contrary to record.

¶22

This Court has also considered the various orders, which have been filed by the petitioner before this Court and as such no findings can be recorded on the basis of the document produced before this Court that the petitioner had worked for 240 days prior to his date of retrenchment with effect from 01.01.1987.

¶23

This Court, accordingly finds that no error has been committed by the Labour Court while passing the order/award and no inference can be made by this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶24

The petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed, accordingly.

¶25

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶26

Monika/29

Vishnu Kumar Chainman v. District Collector and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Kumar Chainman v. District Collector and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satpal Katariya and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Dr. N C Pahria (Since Deceased) Vs University of Rajasthan

Updesh Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ms. Ummey Kulsum Jatu D/O Amiruddin Jatu Vs National Medical Commission

Executive Engineer (Railway - O and M) Vs Bhanwar Singh S/O Hanuman Singh

Dinesh Kumar Saini Vs State of Raj and Ors.